Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 140

101 ITR 776Supreme Court of India1975#14639 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 10(2)Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148

Judgments citing Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 140

Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs. ACIT Circle, Circle Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ge) has laid down the law, that income must be assessed in the hands of the right person. It is also no longer res-integra. That an HUF is a separate assessable entity has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda Vs. CIT reported as 101 ITR 776 page Supreme Court. 10. As the case of the assessee HUF (Virbhadra Singh HUF) has already been reopened and the matter is sub-judice the assessment of the same in the hands of the individual assessee amounts to double taxation which is not permissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO report…

Satyam Sureka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Cir-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 152/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.(S.S).A. No. 13 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Satyam Sureka Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 68

…halodia vs. ITO reported in [2011] 140 TTJ 58 (Rajkot) wherein it has been held as under: “The expression Hindu Undivided Family must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law as has been in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda vs. CIT 101 ITR 776 (SC). Actually a Hindu Undivided family constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. All these persons fall in the definition of relative as provided in Explanation to clause (vi) of Section 56(2) of the Act. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that HUF is as…

Shri Gyanchand M. Bardia, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Accordingly set aside. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 2244/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr. D.R

Section 10(2)Section 250(6)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…rect decisions of various Tribunals, which are being followed even after such an amendment by different Tribunal, were held to be "not applicable'. Even the Findings and observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Surjitlal Chhabda reported in 101 ITR 776 (SC) were given a go by without proper discussion. Moreover, we also regret to state, with due respect, that the alternative ground of claim of exemption u/s 10(2) of the Act was dismissed without any meaningful discussion although direct decision of the Honourable Rajkot Bench in the case of Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia V. ITO reported in […

DCIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Ateev V Gala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1906/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 10(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 64(2)

…ll defined area under the Hindu Law which has received recognition throughout. Therefore, the expression ‘Hindu Undivided Family” must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu Law as has been in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabra vs CIT 101 ITR 776(SC). Actually a ‘Hindu Undivided Family” constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. All these persons fall in the definition of “relative” as provided in Explanation to clause (vi) of section 56(2) of the Act. The observation of the CIT(A) that HUF is as g…

Hemal D. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 25(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2627/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhshri Hemal D. Shah Dcit -25(3), 1101, Sunrise Tower, Pratyakshyakar Bhawan, Ramgally, Kandivali (West), Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Pan: Aofps0633E Mumbai-4000251 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kothari -ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vi)

…tax as a person under the IT Act. The Bench has observed that, quote "Therefore, the expression "HUF" must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law as has been in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda vs. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 140: (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC). Actually an "HUF" constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. All these persons fall in the definition of "relative" as provided in Explanation to cl.(vi) of s. 56(2) of the Act. The observation of the CIT(A) that HUF is as good as ‘a BOI’ and cannot…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4528/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Acit 24(3), Shri Rakesh Kumar Garodia, Room No.413,7Th Floor, Vs. ¾ Govind Nagar, Pawan Baug Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (West), Mumbai-400061. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.: Aaapg8736D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh(AR)For Respondent: Shri Nitin R. Waghmode (DR)

Section 10(42)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(v)